So the party of the "free market" wants to intervene in the market and actively destroy the climate at the same time, while preventing some of the cheapest and best renewable options we have? And their nuclear option is the most expensive option we have and the most time consuming of all?
They really have no clue!
Not to mention, they're trying to destroy business investment from happening. Business investment that would create jobs in the regions. You know, where their constituents are.
There is clearly a deliberate campaign to destroy investor confidence in renewables, by creating as much future uncertainty as possible. This is really black-hearted stuff by the coalition.
Yup and they're explicit about it here too:
>“We want to send the investment signals that there is a cap on where [the Coalition] will go with renewables and where we will put them,” he said.
>The Infrastructure Department’s latest State of the Regions report on Wednesday said jobs needed for the “net zero transformation” would have to increase by about 30 per cent, or about **213,000 workers, by 2033, with the growth “likely to be stronger in regional Australia”**.
……
> But the State of the Regions report said the employment, investment and other economic benefits – including upgrades to roads and digital infrastructure to manage rapidly increasing volumes of clean energy and storage – from the energy transition **will disproportionately go to the regions**.
https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/regions-to-get-jobs-from-transition-not-just-power-lines-report-20240207-p5f333
>*Not to mention, they're trying to destroy business investment from happening.*
Wouldn't that be classed as restriction of trade.??... I can see some legal challenges...
Has the national party ever truly been about the 'free market'? I mean, maybe they give it the time of day with their coalition, and as right wingers they do have to posture about it here and there. But these guys have always been about sending city money to rural areas for their own projects.
They’ve always been the agrarian socialists. All for free market for anyone else, but a communist 5-year plan-type set-up for anything their mates are running
Oh hey, it's what NZ's right wing coalition is currently doing.
* They recently rooted the emissions trading scheme market in NZ by saying all the prices should be far lower.
* They further exempted agricultural emissions from the scheme.
* They pulled the plug on a pumped hydro storage system.
* They are actively restricting transport spend on footpaths and cycleways
* Lol for any hope of decent rail
* Acted to limit EV uptake by removing subsidy that was paid for by a levy on high pollution vehicles
* Made all EVs and PHEVs pay road user charges, even though petrol taxes that PHEVs pay when using petrol already include a tax for road maintenance.
* Did I mention that the RUC they pay is the same rate that diesel trucks pay, despite, you know, a big truck doing more damage to roads than a fucking Prius.
Countries and politicians claiming to be pro-free market (or pro-free speech / pro-democracy) are always the first to propose restrictions and tariffs when people don't do what they want them to do.
Yep, look at the backwards Florida government. They're banning lab grown meat. So they say one thing about "freedoms", and do another when it comes to BS unfair market intervention.
Voters can thankfully see right past that now (I hope).
I remember laughing when they said after their election loss "clearly this means we need to go further right! We're too soft nowadays! The voters have spoken!" When it was clearly the exact opposite lol.
The number of times the coalition has claimed a mandate to do something based on the most tenuous, acrobatic mental path to arrive at that conclusion.. I have run out of fingers counting them...
> Voters can thankfully see right past that now (I hope).
Propping up vested interests leads to greater stability in employment, and lack of corporate regulation leads to a growing stockmarket. For those who don't care about anything except making money, the coalition is a shoo-in.
I'd never vote for the LNP in a bazillion years, but don't pretend that people don't have good reasons for doing so.
But that's not what happens.
If you want stability in employment you have the government take ownership of the failing business.
Shoveling more cash at it with no restrictions just causes unsustainable growth and then a crash when/if the propping up stops.
Also, id argue that lack of corporate regulations leads to a slower, but maybe less volatile market?
If you are happy to let corps do whatever the hell they want you will have a monopoly within 5 or 10 years.
So the market isn't expanding really, it is pretty predictable as far as, the one big company monopoly won't fail cause the consumers have no choice.
I get your viewpoint, but I think it's a bit more complicated than what you said.
Both major parties are propping up vested interests anyway
Who's supposed to get behind this, how does it turn into mass votes? Who, even if they're conservatives, thinks yeah lets limit cheap power
> Who's supposed to get behind this, how does it turn into mass votes?
Taking on this policy leads to support from industry, which is gigantically valuable.
It also leads to jobs-for-the-boys after leaving politics, which is gigantically valuable on a personal level.
Both the major parties completely pander to the industry anyway. See Labor's not-Morrison gas-led recovery
Madeleine King is already working for the fossil fuel industry - she's bascially just an attache/lobbyist masquerading as an MP. The gas industry is absolutely not under threat in this country
I just can't see this catching on as an exciting idea with voters - who will even be motivated to cast a vote based on such an issue (restricting renewables) unless they're also afraid of 5G and 15 minute cities (aka being able to walk to a shop)?
Most people, even conservative, are happy with solar power or the idea of getting it on on their homes. That's a pretty decent part of the renewable grid many don't consider
This just seems like despo policy making by someone completely soundbite-brained. The type of person who this beef is a culture war issue
> Both the major parties completely pander to the industry anyway
Federal Labor just passed a budget based around increasing tax on large corporations and reducing it for lower income people. Queensland Labor is facing a huge smear campaign for increasing coal royalties and using it to invest in green energy, which the likely new LNP government will remove. You can say Labor isn't going far enough but you can never say 'both parties are the same' especially when it comes to climate change and pandering to industry.
It's incredibly simple, they don't believe in anything that won't make them money hand over fist. Noone in these positions believe in the free market they just want to strip the copper wiring and then retire to their nice property while everyone else struggles.
Such as what?
Australian farmers are some of the least subsidized and least protected in the entire world. They're far more efficient than farmers in the EU and US who get truckloads of help. Did you know nearly 40% of the EU's budget is spent on their farmers?
https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/news/scrapping_global_agricultural_support_reduces_emissions
> Australia has one of the lowest levels of distorting agricultural subsidies and tariffs across the 38 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries - and when compared to major emerging economies.
It was "but the free market must exist" when we sold off all our public housing.
But no one said a word when the housing market got warped by incentives to wealthy investors.
It only needs to be free market when they say it does.
Otherwise, the incentives are needed for... reasons.
Also, don't suggest the government goes crazy and builds a shit ton (official measuremen) of public houses. What are you a Commie?
Dude, the coalition is just responding to what the electorate wants. One of the biggest voter concerns today is the proliferation of renewable energy projects. Hardworking Australian families are coming home to find a wind-farms popping up in their backyards. And voters are deeply unhappy that the principles of trusting science, following international best practices and good economic management are just *un-Australian*. But more than that, Aussie battlers are outraged over energy prices - specifically, why as a nation, we aren't investing in more outrageously expensive forms of energy generation than renewables.
\- oh, wait...
Yeah I was about to get so mad at you lol. It's depressing how far I could read into this and it be an actual complaint.
Some houses in one of our costal suburbs in Newcastle, Mereweather I think, tried to get construction of some offshore wind turbines pulled.
Not because it cost too much, or was ineffective. No, they had paid good money for these houses and didn't want some ugly turbines running their view.
I mean the massive coal ships that constantly hang out there, yeah that's cool. Ugly wind turbines, ewwww.
>“We want to send the investment signals that there is a cap on where [the Coalition] will go with renewables and where we will put them,” he said.
This is exactly what the Coalition's backers want. To introduce uncertainty into the market to reduce investment and hence prolong coal as a resource.
There's no logical reason for a cap. Just empty words like "calm" and "methodical". Very rich from a political party that, and this can't be stated enough, **have no plan**. And if there is no plan, why do you need a cap?
Exactly. So they're the party of bad economic management, lack of foresight/planning, unfair market intervention, class/income disparity, investment uncertainty, climate change denialism, and worst of all climate wreckers, which will affect untold numbers of future generations around the world.
Who would still vote for them?!
So they don't really think logically about who to vote for? Climate change will affect farmers the most! Fires, floods, droughts, all increasing and will create poor conditions for growing food. If you care about that, don't vote for parties that are actively harming the planet!
I was so annoyed watching that 4 Corners ep on rural wind farm wars I had to turn it off. There's people who still want to push for coal, there's people who are still denying climate change (!). Just crazy.
I guess it's a lack of critical thinking and good media access.
I know, right? I think a lot of it is a manifestation of the good old city/country divide, but don't get me wrong, I knew plenty of coal die-hards when I lived in the city, except their preferred pollies wore black shoes instead of brown.
Unfortunately climate-change denialism is still big out here, but also a lot of it is older people who simply don't care because they won't live to see the end result. I think it's slowly starting to change among younger people (ie "yes, climate change is real, but we're not causing it", or "yes, it's a thing, but we can't do anything about it."). Who knows, maybe in another thirty years, regional Australia might finally get on-board with what we need to do.
EDIT: I know what you mean about climate change stuff on tele. I don't watch it, because I like not having stupid-people-induced aneurysms.
I suspect more older folk are more likely to be stuck in their ways, but surely if they have kids/grandkids they would care about the livability of the planet after they've passed?!
And yeah it does my head in watching some of these people speak about climate change on the telly too, can't watch it. It's 2024, we've known about climate change for decades, it's not the time to be "questioning the science". We gotta act now.
*Margaret fucking Thatcher* understood the danger well (though she *was* actually a scientist). Most European conservatives (and even some of their fascists, for fucks sake) don't even see it as an issue to be contested.
But then, most of their economies aren't controlled by mining companies. Or at least coal/gas companies.
Oh, and lack of critical thinking is a very valid point, but it's not just in the regions. Good media access is a thing too, but I think lack of media literacy is actually the key factor. There is good media out there. Knowing it for what it is, is the stumbling block.
it's got nothing to do with logic or critical thinking of any of the things you mention
it is 100% all about barrels and barrels and barrels of pork
they have _always_ voted in their own self interest - and I don't mean _collectively_ - and always will
when the local member gets up and promises new lights for the football field of a new swimming pool for the local high school or whatever, _it makes not a single lick of difference_ what the policy at the national level might happen to be for that particular member, whether it be on economic management, climate change, housing affordability, or whatever...
It honestly boggles the mind. I'm not even a farmer, just someone with a veggie patch, and this past couple of Summers have already made it basically impossible to grow anything. You'd think people's whose very livelihoods dependent on it would be pushing for climate action the most.
How would the cap even work? How could they police what a private company decides to invest in? Are they going to tell super funds to invest with one hand tied behind their back? Are they going to turn away foreign investment in Australia?
I can't see it standing up to any kind of challenge.
> Are they going to tell super funds to invest with one hand tied behind their back?
Fuck up Australia's energy transition and undermine superannuation in one swoop?
Yep, that's probably their express intent.
They’re a party of great economic management for their friends and themselves. Everything they do benefits the inner circle and billionaire class extremely well.
Let’s not attribute their actions to stupidity - they know what they’re doing and ruthlessly achieve sociopathic means. Middle class voters are a means to an end.
you know how you can tell they have no plan?
the wording
"it will take a little longer to get there"
2050 is a _fixed point in time_ – you literally cannot take any longer to get there than the "normal" amount of time it takes to get there
Like even if you ignored climate science wouldn’t you be agnostic and support whatever energy is cheapest? The Nats love to paint the Greens as ideologues but they’re far worse.
Actually, it probably did.
The societal superstructure (laws, custom, tradition, beliefs, etc) is mainly driven by the material base (the actual physical environment, economics, relations of production), more than the other way around.
Pretty difficult to develop renewable energy or something approaching an actual democracy before we go hogwild burning coal. It's all but a law of physics that by the time we know we need this stuff capital is putting out disinformation about it.
what never ceases to amaze me is all those people who somehow find wind farms "unattractive" [seem to never have any problem with these things](https://legal-planet.org/2023/05/19/local-authority-over-oil-drilling-heads-to-california-supreme-court/) being all over the place
similarly, even when we're talking about something that is "off-shore" - ie on the _water_ and literally not in anyone's backyard - there's the objections, right on cue - and yet [nobody ever seems to object to these monstrosities](https://www.upstreamonline.com/rigs-and-vessels/drilling-rig-back-to-work-offshore-australia/2-1-841834)
And this is why farmers will never get my sympathy for suffering from the effects of climate change. Because they are the ones who continuously vote this mob in. They are shooting themselves in the foot.
This is a boomer farmer talking to his boomer constituents on legacy media.
Carbon trading is startingin 2030. It's been in the works since the early 2000s.
What cunts like this and Barno are doing is muddying the waters. I'm a gen x farmer and this is how it's going to work.
In 2030 the Paris accord reductions come in to effect. Then to meet or exceed these reductions big polluters are going to have to find low emmision products or buy offsets
We as farmers are not required to be carbon neutral. We'll sell products with an emission score tied to it. These get kicked up the supply chain exactly like the gst.
So I supply wheat. I pass on my emmisions, including the emmisions passed to me via fuel Fert etcetera. The buyer takes on those emissions and passes that onto the miller, the bread maker, then eventually the consumer.
The opportunity we as farmers is to go through the audit process, take low emission product to market knowing our competitors with higher emmisions are going to make it hard to hit the Paris accord targets.
I've Done the audit on my farming business. Efficiency and innovation are tied directly to low emmisions, and I've personally invested another half million in tech to reduce that even further. The old boys are shitting bullets because it's complex. I'm looking at it as one of the best marketing, product differentiation opportunities we've ever had.
Holy fuck my economics brain got hard reading this…
I wish you the best of luck in innovating, reducing price, increasing yield and margin and growing your market share, I hope people like you are fucking billionaires and take it all from the idiots who can’t adapt.
Go you good thing!
The disconnect between sub 50 farmers and the Nats is huge. Libs aren't much better, even when the Teals took so much from the coalition, they double down on shit like this, and vote cunts like Barno and Dutto to lead. I dream of a day when these boomer cunts and their sky news watching, homophobic ,transphobic, racist supporters are cold in the ground.
Not just "modern farmers"... Us "hippies" have been doing it for 50 years and the conservatives hate us... Until we walk in with a pocket of cash and buy them out in the middle of another drought...
I'm aware of permaculture and restorative farming and all that - it's something I aspire towards... but getting any decently-sized land anywhere east of the Great Dividing Range seems impossible for non-millionares these days.
Every farm costs a million these days... Plus several more for equipment... improvements and stock... Just putting in a wheat crop and harvesting can cost half a million plus...
this stuff is _always_ the boomer politician talking to the boomer electorate - every time on every single matter
they have been the largest cohort with the single largest influence on policy since the 1960s and to this day we _still_ are in their thrall, not only as a voting block but also as an economic force to be reckoned with
they own the properties we're renting and they dictate the tax policies that have made that viable since before many of us were even born
they own the businesses that make up the business councils that advise and shape the government policies we have to choose from
they outspend the rest of us
they outvote the rest of us
this is _their_ world - we just live in it
> The old boys are shitting bullets because it's complex
This is what I've been thinking. Anyone I've seen talking about agribusiness over the last decade is talking about how inefficient current farming practices are in multiple different arenas (labour, land, carbon, environmental, pesticides,...) and how they're working really hard to learn more and create new industry best practices. Then you get old mate up the road who wants to do it exactly like his dad and grandad did "Just dump more pesticide on it! More fertilizer!".
They can't move with the times to adopt new things that will make their farm more efficient and productive. They're stuck in the 60s and 70s.
So our biggest emmisions driver is nitrogen and lime. So we get allocated a chunk of emissions for the amount we use.
I've invested in spreader gps tech that we can determine how much water we have available and overlay yeild data from the previous year and overlay the historcal soil test data, then overlay the green map which is gps NDVI data.
We combine all the data, and generate a prescription map that alters the amount of urea applied in the zones 9f the paddock to maximise yeild and reduce waste.
I've also invested in a sowing tech that allows us to get better seed placement when it's dry. The seasons are more temperamental beca7se global warming. We can also handle all the previous years residue so we don't need to burn it or dig it in.
And the pre em herbicide space is extending our growing seasons as well.
One of the biggest drivers for us is new varieties. We used to be happy with 20kg/mm WUE, but now were pushing 35.
The Nats represent Big Farmer and the Minerals Council of Australia. There are a ton of farmers who believe in climate change and don't support CSG or unfettered mining. Unfortunately theri supporters are rusted on and will vote Nationals because that's what they identify as, the Nationals have been overtaken by the likes of Barnaby and Gina in the last 20 years.
> “The Coalition isn’t against renewables, but renewables should be in an environment they can’t destroy.”
Y’know, I bet he applies this logic consistently to all energy sources including coal.
Ah yes, and once you scrape off that top layer of environment, so are coal mines! And downstream will soon be free of environment too!
So convenient! Truly God's energy source.
"It can't hurt you"
Firstly, the piece he held was lacquered and sealed. Secondly, the problem is burning it at a huge rate. So we should lock him in a sealed room and burn a half to of coal. Nothing to fear, as it can't hurt us right?
Lol yeah actually Scomo coal is the deadliest energy source we have, so you can stuff that coal where the sun don't shine.
Where the sun does shine well is on renewables, which are demonstrably the safest around, as well as the cheapest and the best option we have for averting climate catastrophe.
Global deaths per energy source | Statista
https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/#:~:text=Global%20mortality%20rate%20by%20energy%20source&text=The%20deadliest%20energy%20source%20worldwide,produced%20from%20these%20fossil%20fuels.
>Global mortality rate by energy source. The deadliest energy source worldwide is coal. It is estimated that there are roughly 33 deaths from brown coal (also known as Lignite) and 25 deaths from coal per terawatt-hour (TWh) of electricity produced from these fossil fuels. While figures take into account accidents, the majority of deaths associated with coal come from air pollution.
>Clean and renewable energy sources are unsurprisingly the least deadly energy sources, with 0.04 and 0.02 deaths associated with wind and solar per unit of electricity, respectively.
>Littleproud offered no details of the Coalition energy plan, only conceding “it will take a little longer to get there”.
"But first let us cap the renewable energy investment for no obvious reasons than to be popular with some of our most backward donors. Also nuclear goes choochoo.".
- David Littleproud 2024 circa-
*Oil and Gas getting propped up by the tax payer for decades*
Liberals: "This is fine"
*Renewables getting investment*
Liberals: "WE NEED A CAP!! THINK OF THE.... WHALES!"
Looks like someone should put a cap on David littleproud and his party - the amount of air they expel in a sitting day in parliament is enough to solve Australia's energy crisis with renewables
Coalition in 2018: We should let the market decide what energy mix we have!
Coalition in 2024: We shouldn't let the market decide what energy mix we have!
\[Insert NPC not like that meme here\]
It's incredible how much they attack capitalists in general in order to protect a tiny handful of mates in the coal and gas sectors. They even threatened investors choosing to shift investments away from fossil fuels.
What a fucking idiot. Meanwhile people in rural areas are waiting longer to see Doctors, specialists, surgery etc etc. So many issues in areas that the Nationals say they represent and all this little pissant does is hang off Duttons pocket like TBag in Prison Break.
Hang on. So they want to cap private sector investment?
I’m generally a centre right voter, think more like Turnbull than Morrison. One of the key things I believe in is private sector being able to invest and grow the economy (within sensible regulations).
It would be one thing to cap government investment- all governments have a budget and must decide where to spend.
But the government restricting private investment for political reasons? That’s a massive no from me, and shows why they are not ready to govern
In Europe renewables eat the nuclear profits in same way renewables here make coal unprofitable. Reactors are regularly shut down because no one wants to buy their output when renewables are so cheap and available. And this is before batteries are widespread. Nuclear needs a lot of protection from the freemarket even today.
>So they want to cap private sector investment?
[I does not seem to be](https://www.perplexity.ai/search/is-this-httpswwwtheguar-V4qJu_EXSaaSPuaXB9lj3g)
Hey guys, want to invest in infrastructure that will guarantee we can always meet our energy demands without destroying the environment.
No. Let's keep digging up shit that we'll eventually run out of, ensuring that it always goes up in value so the guys that put money in our pockets will be able to keep doing so.
Who...is this for? People don't want their ridiculous policies and big business doesn't want them either. Businesses are all heavily investing in renewables including the mining and energy sectors, they won't allow the coalition to get in to power if this is what it means because it will be less money for everyone. They are guaranteeing themselves a complete election wipeout...and to be honest I kind of want to see it happen. Absolute idiots.
The look on his face says
"Look I can't believe the words coming out of my mouth either...but this is what we are going with"
He is either stunned that this policy exists or he is permastunned from being a fuckwit
If we all vote for minor parties it will send a clear, strong message that we've had enough.
The ultimate chaos would be if it were close between the Greens and One Nation. One holding the House of Commons, the other taking the Senate.
I'm not saying it could or should last. I just think it would be hilarious watching them go at it. Question Time would be the best thing on television!
Oh well. One can dream.
So the party of the "free market" wants to intervene in the market and actively destroy the climate at the same time, while preventing some of the cheapest and best renewable options we have? And their nuclear option is the most expensive option we have and the most time consuming of all? They really have no clue!
Not to mention, they're trying to destroy business investment from happening. Business investment that would create jobs in the regions. You know, where their constituents are.
Yup, who needs investment certainty?! Oh wait, investors/the business market/employees/everyone!
There is clearly a deliberate campaign to destroy investor confidence in renewables, by creating as much future uncertainty as possible. This is really black-hearted stuff by the coalition.
Yup and they're explicit about it here too: >“We want to send the investment signals that there is a cap on where [the Coalition] will go with renewables and where we will put them,” he said.
>where their constituents are. Vaucluse? Peppermint Grove? New York?
>The Infrastructure Department’s latest State of the Regions report on Wednesday said jobs needed for the “net zero transformation” would have to increase by about 30 per cent, or about **213,000 workers, by 2033, with the growth “likely to be stronger in regional Australia”**. …… > But the State of the Regions report said the employment, investment and other economic benefits – including upgrades to roads and digital infrastructure to manage rapidly increasing volumes of clean energy and storage – from the energy transition **will disproportionately go to the regions**. https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/regions-to-get-jobs-from-transition-not-just-power-lines-report-20240207-p5f333
'twas meant to be a humourous allude to the LNP's constituents being the rich citydwellers who fund them :)
>*Not to mention, they're trying to destroy business investment from happening.* Wouldn't that be classed as restriction of trade.??... I can see some legal challenges...
Has the national party ever truly been about the 'free market'? I mean, maybe they give it the time of day with their coalition, and as right wingers they do have to posture about it here and there. But these guys have always been about sending city money to rural areas for their own projects.
They’ve always been the agrarian socialists. All for free market for anyone else, but a communist 5-year plan-type set-up for anything their mates are running
Is that you my friend ?
We want the market to decide! (unless they decide something we don't like)
Unless the decision goes against where our personal investiments are to best benefit.
Oh hey, it's what NZ's right wing coalition is currently doing. * They recently rooted the emissions trading scheme market in NZ by saying all the prices should be far lower. * They further exempted agricultural emissions from the scheme. * They pulled the plug on a pumped hydro storage system. * They are actively restricting transport spend on footpaths and cycleways * Lol for any hope of decent rail * Acted to limit EV uptake by removing subsidy that was paid for by a levy on high pollution vehicles * Made all EVs and PHEVs pay road user charges, even though petrol taxes that PHEVs pay when using petrol already include a tax for road maintenance. * Did I mention that the RUC they pay is the same rate that diesel trucks pay, despite, you know, a big truck doing more damage to roads than a fucking Prius.
Countries and politicians claiming to be pro-free market (or pro-free speech / pro-democracy) are always the first to propose restrictions and tariffs when people don't do what they want them to do.
Yep, look at the backwards Florida government. They're banning lab grown meat. So they say one thing about "freedoms", and do another when it comes to BS unfair market intervention.
> They really have no clue! By propping up vested interests they might just win the next election.
Voters can thankfully see right past that now (I hope). I remember laughing when they said after their election loss "clearly this means we need to go further right! We're too soft nowadays! The voters have spoken!" When it was clearly the exact opposite lol.
The number of times the coalition has claimed a mandate to do something based on the most tenuous, acrobatic mental path to arrive at that conclusion.. I have run out of fingers counting them...
> Voters can thankfully see right past that now (I hope). Propping up vested interests leads to greater stability in employment, and lack of corporate regulation leads to a growing stockmarket. For those who don't care about anything except making money, the coalition is a shoo-in. I'd never vote for the LNP in a bazillion years, but don't pretend that people don't have good reasons for doing so.
Good reasons maybe not, more like selfish or misguided reasons.
But that's not what happens. If you want stability in employment you have the government take ownership of the failing business. Shoveling more cash at it with no restrictions just causes unsustainable growth and then a crash when/if the propping up stops. Also, id argue that lack of corporate regulations leads to a slower, but maybe less volatile market? If you are happy to let corps do whatever the hell they want you will have a monopoly within 5 or 10 years. So the market isn't expanding really, it is pretty predictable as far as, the one big company monopoly won't fail cause the consumers have no choice. I get your viewpoint, but I think it's a bit more complicated than what you said.
Both major parties are propping up vested interests anyway Who's supposed to get behind this, how does it turn into mass votes? Who, even if they're conservatives, thinks yeah lets limit cheap power
> Who's supposed to get behind this, how does it turn into mass votes? Taking on this policy leads to support from industry, which is gigantically valuable. It also leads to jobs-for-the-boys after leaving politics, which is gigantically valuable on a personal level.
Both the major parties completely pander to the industry anyway. See Labor's not-Morrison gas-led recovery Madeleine King is already working for the fossil fuel industry - she's bascially just an attache/lobbyist masquerading as an MP. The gas industry is absolutely not under threat in this country I just can't see this catching on as an exciting idea with voters - who will even be motivated to cast a vote based on such an issue (restricting renewables) unless they're also afraid of 5G and 15 minute cities (aka being able to walk to a shop)? Most people, even conservative, are happy with solar power or the idea of getting it on on their homes. That's a pretty decent part of the renewable grid many don't consider This just seems like despo policy making by someone completely soundbite-brained. The type of person who this beef is a culture war issue
> Both the major parties completely pander to the industry anyway Federal Labor just passed a budget based around increasing tax on large corporations and reducing it for lower income people. Queensland Labor is facing a huge smear campaign for increasing coal royalties and using it to invest in green energy, which the likely new LNP government will remove. You can say Labor isn't going far enough but you can never say 'both parties are the same' especially when it comes to climate change and pandering to industry.
Oh they definitely have a clue. You just have to remember that they're working for the fossil fuel industry, not Australians.
It's incredibly simple, they don't believe in anything that won't make them money hand over fist. Noone in these positions believe in the free market they just want to strip the copper wiring and then retire to their nice property while everyone else struggles.
Nats have never been free market. They love protection and tariffs
What are you talking about? If we had tariffs we wouldn't have lost virtually all manufacturing.
Tariff and protection for farmers from foreign fruit and grains
Such as what? Australian farmers are some of the least subsidized and least protected in the entire world. They're far more efficient than farmers in the EU and US who get truckloads of help. Did you know nearly 40% of the EU's budget is spent on their farmers? https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/news/scrapping_global_agricultural_support_reduces_emissions > Australia has one of the lowest levels of distorting agricultural subsidies and tariffs across the 38 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries - and when compared to major emerging economies.
Their policy is do the opposite of what the other party is doing. They dont seem to care about the consequences.
It was "but the free market must exist" when we sold off all our public housing. But no one said a word when the housing market got warped by incentives to wealthy investors. It only needs to be free market when they say it does. Otherwise, the incentives are needed for... reasons. Also, don't suggest the government goes crazy and builds a shit ton (official measuremen) of public houses. What are you a Commie?
Oh, they have a clue. They're just being ~~bribed~~ lobied to follow their ~~masters~~ donors wishes.
They have a clue, it's why they don't bite the hand that feeds them
Free market! unless the market does something I don’t like
oh they have a clue, trouble is it comes from the minerals council lobbying them
Yeah well. The uranium lobby paid them that week so.
I particularly enjoy how Littleproud is campaigning on stopping a windfarm in *Sydney*
With the justification that renewables damage the environment.
And yet, they’re somehow drawing even with Labor in the polls? Definitely no media bias to see here!
NBN 2.0
*"That's not enough! We demand more asbestos! MORE ASBESTOS! MORE ASBESTOS! MORE ASBESTOS!*" -COALition
Dude, the coalition is just responding to what the electorate wants. One of the biggest voter concerns today is the proliferation of renewable energy projects. Hardworking Australian families are coming home to find a wind-farms popping up in their backyards. And voters are deeply unhappy that the principles of trusting science, following international best practices and good economic management are just *un-Australian*. But more than that, Aussie battlers are outraged over energy prices - specifically, why as a nation, we aren't investing in more outrageously expensive forms of energy generation than renewables. \- oh, wait...
Had me going for a minute.
Yeah I was about to get so mad at you lol. It's depressing how far I could read into this and it be an actual complaint. Some houses in one of our costal suburbs in Newcastle, Mereweather I think, tried to get construction of some offshore wind turbines pulled. Not because it cost too much, or was ineffective. No, they had paid good money for these houses and didn't want some ugly turbines running their view. I mean the massive coal ships that constantly hang out there, yeah that's cool. Ugly wind turbines, ewwww.
It reads like something a Lib pollie spouts off on Sky News and isn't called out on by the interviewer
Legalise asbestos when?
>“We want to send the investment signals that there is a cap on where [the Coalition] will go with renewables and where we will put them,” he said. This is exactly what the Coalition's backers want. To introduce uncertainty into the market to reduce investment and hence prolong coal as a resource. There's no logical reason for a cap. Just empty words like "calm" and "methodical". Very rich from a political party that, and this can't be stated enough, **have no plan**. And if there is no plan, why do you need a cap?
Exactly. So they're the party of bad economic management, lack of foresight/planning, unfair market intervention, class/income disparity, investment uncertainty, climate change denialism, and worst of all climate wreckers, which will affect untold numbers of future generations around the world. Who would still vote for them?!
Country people. Because that's what country people do. They listen to country music, they eat their tea at 6.00 and they vote for the Nats.
So they don't really think logically about who to vote for? Climate change will affect farmers the most! Fires, floods, droughts, all increasing and will create poor conditions for growing food. If you care about that, don't vote for parties that are actively harming the planet! I was so annoyed watching that 4 Corners ep on rural wind farm wars I had to turn it off. There's people who still want to push for coal, there's people who are still denying climate change (!). Just crazy. I guess it's a lack of critical thinking and good media access.
>So they don't really think logically about who to vote for? Yup sums it up
I know, right? I think a lot of it is a manifestation of the good old city/country divide, but don't get me wrong, I knew plenty of coal die-hards when I lived in the city, except their preferred pollies wore black shoes instead of brown. Unfortunately climate-change denialism is still big out here, but also a lot of it is older people who simply don't care because they won't live to see the end result. I think it's slowly starting to change among younger people (ie "yes, climate change is real, but we're not causing it", or "yes, it's a thing, but we can't do anything about it."). Who knows, maybe in another thirty years, regional Australia might finally get on-board with what we need to do. EDIT: I know what you mean about climate change stuff on tele. I don't watch it, because I like not having stupid-people-induced aneurysms.
I suspect more older folk are more likely to be stuck in their ways, but surely if they have kids/grandkids they would care about the livability of the planet after they've passed?! And yeah it does my head in watching some of these people speak about climate change on the telly too, can't watch it. It's 2024, we've known about climate change for decades, it's not the time to be "questioning the science". We gotta act now.
*Margaret fucking Thatcher* understood the danger well (though she *was* actually a scientist). Most European conservatives (and even some of their fascists, for fucks sake) don't even see it as an issue to be contested. But then, most of their economies aren't controlled by mining companies. Or at least coal/gas companies.
Oh, and lack of critical thinking is a very valid point, but it's not just in the regions. Good media access is a thing too, but I think lack of media literacy is actually the key factor. There is good media out there. Knowing it for what it is, is the stumbling block.
I'm from the regions; I wouldn't vote LNP/Nats if offered a never ending packet of Tim Tams to do so.
I don't like Tim Tams anyway. Oh, wait... this isn't the un-Australian thread!
Oh I don't know. A never ending packet of Tim Tam sounds fantastic. /s PS. I banned them in my house. Lol.
it's got nothing to do with logic or critical thinking of any of the things you mention it is 100% all about barrels and barrels and barrels of pork they have _always_ voted in their own self interest - and I don't mean _collectively_ - and always will when the local member gets up and promises new lights for the football field of a new swimming pool for the local high school or whatever, _it makes not a single lick of difference_ what the policy at the national level might happen to be for that particular member, whether it be on economic management, climate change, housing affordability, or whatever...
Mate I know LGBT country people who vote Nats (and therefore coalition) because their family has always voted Nats.
Yes, I suspect I know a few like that too. Turkeys voting for Chrsitmas 'n all.
It honestly boggles the mind. I'm not even a farmer, just someone with a veggie patch, and this past couple of Summers have already made it basically impossible to grow anything. You'd think people's whose very livelihoods dependent on it would be pushing for climate action the most.
And while expecting high speed internet on rusty fence wire.
These days country folk are spoon fed a healthy diet of Sky News and Murdoch papers.
Yes, it's pretty much all there is, unless you're willing to put in the effort to find something that's not garbage. Ergo: Nats still rule the bush.
Who the fuck eats tea? You’re supposed to drink it ya drongo’s.
Exactly. I've always called it dinner.
How would the cap even work? How could they police what a private company decides to invest in? Are they going to tell super funds to invest with one hand tied behind their back? Are they going to turn away foreign investment in Australia? I can't see it standing up to any kind of challenge.
> Are they going to tell super funds to invest with one hand tied behind their back? Fuck up Australia's energy transition and undermine superannuation in one swoop? Yep, that's probably their express intent.
They’re a party of great economic management for their friends and themselves. Everything they do benefits the inner circle and billionaire class extremely well. Let’s not attribute their actions to stupidity - they know what they’re doing and ruthlessly achieve sociopathic means. Middle class voters are a means to an end.
To be fair, there was an unwritten cap on renewables under the Coalition for their last reign of terror. They are just showing their true colours.
Let the market decide
No..not like that!!!
you know how you can tell they have no plan? the wording "it will take a little longer to get there" 2050 is a _fixed point in time_ – you literally cannot take any longer to get there than the "normal" amount of time it takes to get there
If these useless cunts get voted back in I swear to god..
renewable energy never needed to be a political issue..
Yeah, I'd hoped we were past the climate wars.
Feels like 2010 all over again
Oh friend we haven’t even begun
Like even if you ignored climate science wouldn’t you be agnostic and support whatever energy is cheapest? The Nats love to paint the Greens as ideologues but they’re far worse.
Actually, it probably did. The societal superstructure (laws, custom, tradition, beliefs, etc) is mainly driven by the material base (the actual physical environment, economics, relations of production), more than the other way around. Pretty difficult to develop renewable energy or something approaching an actual democracy before we go hogwild burning coal. It's all but a law of physics that by the time we know we need this stuff capital is putting out disinformation about it.
Looking forward to the party that says people don't like wind farms in their area explaining where their nuclear plants are going to be built.
On their rooftops, apparently, where the concentration of power and population is.
what never ceases to amaze me is all those people who somehow find wind farms "unattractive" [seem to never have any problem with these things](https://legal-planet.org/2023/05/19/local-authority-over-oil-drilling-heads-to-california-supreme-court/) being all over the place similarly, even when we're talking about something that is "off-shore" - ie on the _water_ and literally not in anyone's backyard - there's the objections, right on cue - and yet [nobody ever seems to object to these monstrosities](https://www.upstreamonline.com/rigs-and-vessels/drilling-rig-back-to-work-offshore-australia/2-1-841834)
They are going to put small modular nuclear reactors in all the hipster breweries in Marrickville.
God he's a fucking flog in the party of fucking flogs.
He has little to be proud of...
And this is why farmers will never get my sympathy for suffering from the effects of climate change. Because they are the ones who continuously vote this mob in. They are shooting themselves in the foot.
This is a boomer farmer talking to his boomer constituents on legacy media. Carbon trading is startingin 2030. It's been in the works since the early 2000s. What cunts like this and Barno are doing is muddying the waters. I'm a gen x farmer and this is how it's going to work. In 2030 the Paris accord reductions come in to effect. Then to meet or exceed these reductions big polluters are going to have to find low emmision products or buy offsets We as farmers are not required to be carbon neutral. We'll sell products with an emission score tied to it. These get kicked up the supply chain exactly like the gst. So I supply wheat. I pass on my emmisions, including the emmisions passed to me via fuel Fert etcetera. The buyer takes on those emissions and passes that onto the miller, the bread maker, then eventually the consumer. The opportunity we as farmers is to go through the audit process, take low emission product to market knowing our competitors with higher emmisions are going to make it hard to hit the Paris accord targets. I've Done the audit on my farming business. Efficiency and innovation are tied directly to low emmisions, and I've personally invested another half million in tech to reduce that even further. The old boys are shitting bullets because it's complex. I'm looking at it as one of the best marketing, product differentiation opportunities we've ever had.
Holy fuck my economics brain got hard reading this… I wish you the best of luck in innovating, reducing price, increasing yield and margin and growing your market share, I hope people like you are fucking billionaires and take it all from the idiots who can’t adapt. Go you good thing!
Thank goodness I'm not the only one with an econboner.
I like the econboner phrasing, mine was nearly econcum but yes you are not the only one.
He isn't even a farmer, he's a townie.
The disconnect between sub 50 farmers and the Nats is huge. Libs aren't much better, even when the Teals took so much from the coalition, they double down on shit like this, and vote cunts like Barno and Dutto to lead. I dream of a day when these boomer cunts and their sky news watching, homophobic ,transphobic, racist supporters are cold in the ground.
That post was a great insight into what modern farmers are doing to help. Thanks for the info.
Not just "modern farmers"... Us "hippies" have been doing it for 50 years and the conservatives hate us... Until we walk in with a pocket of cash and buy them out in the middle of another drought...
I'm aware of permaculture and restorative farming and all that - it's something I aspire towards... but getting any decently-sized land anywhere east of the Great Dividing Range seems impossible for non-millionares these days.
Every farm costs a million these days... Plus several more for equipment... improvements and stock... Just putting in a wheat crop and harvesting can cost half a million plus...
this stuff is _always_ the boomer politician talking to the boomer electorate - every time on every single matter they have been the largest cohort with the single largest influence on policy since the 1960s and to this day we _still_ are in their thrall, not only as a voting block but also as an economic force to be reckoned with they own the properties we're renting and they dictate the tax policies that have made that viable since before many of us were even born they own the businesses that make up the business councils that advise and shape the government policies we have to choose from they outspend the rest of us they outvote the rest of us this is _their_ world - we just live in it
> The old boys are shitting bullets because it's complex This is what I've been thinking. Anyone I've seen talking about agribusiness over the last decade is talking about how inefficient current farming practices are in multiple different arenas (labour, land, carbon, environmental, pesticides,...) and how they're working really hard to learn more and create new industry best practices. Then you get old mate up the road who wants to do it exactly like his dad and grandad did "Just dump more pesticide on it! More fertilizer!". They can't move with the times to adopt new things that will make their farm more efficient and productive. They're stuck in the 60s and 70s.
This was great to read. The farmers I know are admittedly all boomers… so it’s great to see a fresh perspective. We need more innovators like you.
Hey mate. Just wondering what sort of tech you bought that makes you more efficient
So our biggest emmisions driver is nitrogen and lime. So we get allocated a chunk of emissions for the amount we use. I've invested in spreader gps tech that we can determine how much water we have available and overlay yeild data from the previous year and overlay the historcal soil test data, then overlay the green map which is gps NDVI data. We combine all the data, and generate a prescription map that alters the amount of urea applied in the zones 9f the paddock to maximise yeild and reduce waste. I've also invested in a sowing tech that allows us to get better seed placement when it's dry. The seasons are more temperamental beca7se global warming. We can also handle all the previous years residue so we don't need to burn it or dig it in. And the pre em herbicide space is extending our growing seasons as well. One of the biggest drivers for us is new varieties. We used to be happy with 20kg/mm WUE, but now were pushing 35.
Ok. Thanks for the well explained response. Where about are you located.
SA
Ok let me know if you ever need nir s moisture meters etc.
Not all farmers are the same..
The Nats represent Big Farmer and the Minerals Council of Australia. There are a ton of farmers who believe in climate change and don't support CSG or unfettered mining. Unfortunately theri supporters are rusted on and will vote Nationals because that's what they identify as, the Nationals have been overtaken by the likes of Barnaby and Gina in the last 20 years.
They undereducated, quasi literate and isolated. They get propagandized into voting against their own interests.
> “The Coalition isn’t against renewables, but renewables should be in an environment they can’t destroy.” Y’know, I bet he applies this logic consistently to all energy sources including coal.
That's not a problem though because they build coal plants outside the environment.
Ah yes, and once you scrape off that top layer of environment, so are coal mines! And downstream will soon be free of environment too! So convenient! Truly God's energy source.
Honestly, this guy has coal in his back pocket
"This is coal! Don't be afraid!"
"It can't hurt you" Firstly, the piece he held was lacquered and sealed. Secondly, the problem is burning it at a huge rate. So we should lock him in a sealed room and burn a half to of coal. Nothing to fear, as it can't hurt us right?
Lol yeah actually Scomo coal is the deadliest energy source we have, so you can stuff that coal where the sun don't shine. Where the sun does shine well is on renewables, which are demonstrably the safest around, as well as the cheapest and the best option we have for averting climate catastrophe. Global deaths per energy source | Statista https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/#:~:text=Global%20mortality%20rate%20by%20energy%20source&text=The%20deadliest%20energy%20source%20worldwide,produced%20from%20these%20fossil%20fuels. >Global mortality rate by energy source. The deadliest energy source worldwide is coal. It is estimated that there are roughly 33 deaths from brown coal (also known as Lignite) and 25 deaths from coal per terawatt-hour (TWh) of electricity produced from these fossil fuels. While figures take into account accidents, the majority of deaths associated with coal come from air pollution. >Clean and renewable energy sources are unsurprisingly the least deadly energy sources, with 0.04 and 0.02 deaths associated with wind and solar per unit of electricity, respectively.
It could hurt, oh, I dunno, HIM, if someone threw it at his head hard enough.
I can't remember the exact name, but was this the guy with a brother that owned a coal mine?
You're thinking of Matt Canavan I think. Just as morally bankrupt as the others.
Ahh that's the cun... one. Bankrupt is the perfect word for it
It’s always amazing how just as Labor seems like it couldn’t be weaker, the LNP manage to be so much worse.
"Guys we have them on the ropes, what should we do" "What if we start punching ourselves in the face?"
>Littleproud offered no details of the Coalition energy plan, only conceding “it will take a little longer to get there”. "But first let us cap the renewable energy investment for no obvious reasons than to be popular with some of our most backward donors. Also nuclear goes choochoo.". - David Littleproud 2024 circa-
The COALition
All about the free market until it goes against their interests , hypocrites
If the lieberals weren't hypocrites.... Then they'd have no features at all...
We believe in the free market.... Wait no not like that!
His face... I can't handle seeing it, it's just so... How has he survived this long? lol
Got those punchable Young Liberal vibes with added chin rolls
Nationals now making it pretty clear why they're pretending to support nuclear energy.
Fuck you. So I’m not supposed to save money with my solar panels and battery and keep being slave to big businesses and bleed till I die.
As ever, the nationals are an absolute joke and embarrassment
I thought the coalition were suppose to be market liberals. Wtf is this interventionist nonsense
Is it sad that Barnaby the pisshead might actually be a better leader than this drop kick?
The Beetrooter can be pragmatic when he has to be, but he's still a philandering, beetroot-faced pisshead. Both are total fuckwits.
They are both oxygen thieves...
Today in complete idiocy This will appeal to the hundred or so remaining active cookers in the country
Overall a dumb policy position
I'd like a cap too... Of LNP members in parliament
*Oil and Gas getting propped up by the tax payer for decades* Liberals: "This is fine" *Renewables getting investment* Liberals: "WE NEED A CAP!! THINK OF THE.... WHALES!"
Well, I'm definitely not voting for them.
David Littleproud da derp dee derp da teetley derpee derpee dumb!
Looks like someone should put a cap on David littleproud and his party - the amount of air they expel in a sitting day in parliament is enough to solve Australia's energy crisis with renewables
Coalition in 2018: We should let the market decide what energy mix we have! Coalition in 2024: We shouldn't let the market decide what energy mix we have! \[Insert NPC not like that meme here\]
Moron, knobhead
Conservatives will only believe in climate change when their house catches fire for the 3rd time.
It's incredible how much they attack capitalists in general in order to protect a tiny handful of mates in the coal and gas sectors. They even threatened investors choosing to shift investments away from fossil fuels.
Future generations will look back on these climate wreckers with complete disgust. I don't know how they sleep at night.
We should put a cap on how many fossil fuel handouts we give to foreign energy companies.
These fuckers are going to kill us all
Free market capitalism.
Can this crap be referred to the anti corruption commission? Like, unless he's receiving payments of some sort, why would a politician say this shit?
This cunt’s eyebrows makes my skin crawl.
It's the beady eyes that repulse me
If you don’t know, vote NO (to the COALition’s nuclear policy)
What a fucking idiot. Meanwhile people in rural areas are waiting longer to see Doctors, specialists, surgery etc etc. So many issues in areas that the Nationals say they represent and all this little pissant does is hang off Duttons pocket like TBag in Prison Break.
Hang on. So they want to cap private sector investment? I’m generally a centre right voter, think more like Turnbull than Morrison. One of the key things I believe in is private sector being able to invest and grow the economy (within sensible regulations). It would be one thing to cap government investment- all governments have a budget and must decide where to spend. But the government restricting private investment for political reasons? That’s a massive no from me, and shows why they are not ready to govern
In Europe renewables eat the nuclear profits in same way renewables here make coal unprofitable. Reactors are regularly shut down because no one wants to buy their output when renewables are so cheap and available. And this is before batteries are widespread. Nuclear needs a lot of protection from the freemarket even today.
>So they want to cap private sector investment? [I does not seem to be](https://www.perplexity.ai/search/is-this-httpswwwtheguar-V4qJu_EXSaaSPuaXB9lj3g)
Is there a cap on donations to their mates?
Mr Little To Be Proud of. What more can you say. Next he will want a cap on Medicare funding so that he fund his coal powered mates.
Would they prefer we invest in the Horse & Cart industry!
Is this match fixing? Are the NLP trying to be unelectable?
Hey guys, want to invest in infrastructure that will guarantee we can always meet our energy demands without destroying the environment. No. Let's keep digging up shit that we'll eventually run out of, ensuring that it always goes up in value so the guys that put money in our pockets will be able to keep doing so.
L:ook at his gimp face.
If you can't knock it down dig it up or burn it, the Nats dont get it.
Who...is this for? People don't want their ridiculous policies and big business doesn't want them either. Businesses are all heavily investing in renewables including the mining and energy sectors, they won't allow the coalition to get in to power if this is what it means because it will be less money for everyone. They are guaranteeing themselves a complete election wipeout...and to be honest I kind of want to see it happen. Absolute idiots.
Fuking idiots
The look on his face says "Look I can't believe the words coming out of my mouth either...but this is what we are going with" He is either stunned that this policy exists or he is permastunned from being a fuckwit
So in jabba the reinharts pocket...
So much for the free market ey. Hypocritical dickheads.
His last two braincells rotted away.
If we all vote for minor parties it will send a clear, strong message that we've had enough. The ultimate chaos would be if it were close between the Greens and One Nation. One holding the House of Commons, the other taking the Senate. I'm not saying it could or should last. I just think it would be hilarious watching them go at it. Question Time would be the best thing on television! Oh well. One can dream.